3 ms·
Specific data: S6G full power: ~165 MW (A fraction of that available for electrical power) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/
by jedc 16y ago
Specific data:
S6G full power: ~165 MW (A fraction of that available for electrical power) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S6G_reactor
Affected Japanese reactors: 785 MW each (All available for electrical power) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- bhousel 16y agoCool, thanks for that! I wasn't thinking that a sub could completely replace all of the power lost by the nuclear power plant, just that one could provide enough for emergency services. It's really just a thought experiment. And this is the power plant in the USS Ronald Reagan nearby (I guess there are 2 which each provide 104MW): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor
- uikjhgyujmn 16y agoIt was proposed in Northern Ireland during a power workers strike. Although considering the limited electrical power you can pull from even a nuclear sub and the 'security implications' of parking one in Belfast during the euphemisms it never got very far
- jedc 16y agoI'd say the real problem is that the power circuitry _within_ the boats/ships are designed to handle quite a bit of load. But the physical connections _on/off_ the boat are likely not designed to carry it. To do this properly would require some redesign of Navy ships/boats.